HABIB BANK LIMITED Versus ABBAS KHALEELI
ORDER
1. This is an application under section 151 C.P.C. made by Mrs. Gohar Begum Khaleeli wife of judgment‑debtor Abbas Khaleeli, a retired C.S.P. Officer. The decree‑holder has asked for the aid of this Court by attaching under Order XXI Rule 43 C.P.C. movable properties including furniture, carpets etc. to be pointed out' by the representative of decree‑holder Habib Bank Ltd. to the Bailiff lying in two bungalows mentioned in the execution application. The Intervenor has submitted that these articles are her exclusive properties and do not belong to her husband Abbas Khalecli. Hence the same should not be attached. A preliminary objection is taken to this application by Mr. Qurban N. Peshori on the ground that an application under Order XXI, Rule 58 C.P.C. raising a claim in respect of a property cannot be initiated until and unless the property is first attached by the Court. Mr. Qadir Saeed has relied upon P L D 1984 Lah. 411 (Muhammad Anwar Khan Tiwana v. Mst. Sadeeqa Begum and 4 others) and contended that an application under section 151, C.P.C. can be moved by an Intervenor to contest an attachment which is going to be issued against her property. I have gone through this ruling. No doubt it has restored an application under section 151 C.P.C., but it has not clarified as to whether a claim can be raised against a property before it is actually attached. The other ruling cited by him is PLD 1969 S.C. 65 (H.M. Saya & Co., Karachi v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd., Karachi), which says that until and unless a procedure is prohibited specifically, there is nothing which debars the Court from following that particular procedure. This ruling relates to an appeal filed by a person, who is a stranger to a suit. The general principle that has been expressed in this ruling is that a person, who has been adversely affected by an order, can challenge the same by filing an appeal. This is because of the fact that he is an aggrieved person.
2. Mr. Qadir Saeed submitted that the Judgment‑debtor was a retired C.S.F. Officer the Intervenor, no doubt, was his wife, but she had abundant sources of income from which she had purchased this property. Hence the attachment of the property would cause her great in covenience and insult and therefore, he wants to obtain relief from the Court before the property is actually attached.
3. There can be no doubt that the principle of law is well‑settled that until and unless a property is attached in execution of a decree, or otherwise, no claim application under Order XXI, Rule 58 C.P.C. can be filed. However, in the A peculiar circumstances of this case I order that the property shown in the execution application shall be attached under Order XX1, Rule 43 C.P.C. and entrusted to the Intervenor by the attaching Officer, who shall then be at liberty to file claim under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C., if she so desires:
4. M.BA./H‑199/K Order accordingly.